ArticleScientific reports2022
Trueness of intraoral scanners according to subgingival depth of abutment for fixed prosthesis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of four gingival retraction techniques on gingival tissue displacement and sulcus depth during digital impression procedures.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Comparison of subgingival finish line reproduction in intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions: a randomized crossover clinical study with/without gingival retraction.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Does Intraoral Scanning at the Subgingival Finish Line Affect the Accuracy of Interim Crowns?Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Four Intra-Oral Scanners in Subgingival Vertical Preparation: An In Vitro 3-Dimensional Comparative Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the trueness of intraoral scanners (IOSs) according to the subgingival finish line depth of tooth preparation for fixed prostheses. The prepared maxillary right first molar was fabricated by using ceramic material. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) of the abutment was obtained by using a contact scanner. The subgingival finish line was located according to the depth at 0-mm, 0.25-mm, 0.5-mm, 0.75-mm, and 1-mm. CAD test models (CTMs) were obtained by using 2 IOSs (i500 and CS3600). CRM and CTM were superimposed and analyzed (Geomagic control X). The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the trueness according to the subgingival finish line depth. The paired t test was used to compare the trueness of IOSs with and without gingival retraction (α = .05). When the gingival displacement code was not used, it was observed that the trueness of both IOSs decreased significantly as the depth of the subgingival finish line increased (P < 0.001). When the subgingival finish line was positioned deeper than 0.5-mm, the trueness of both IOSs exceeded 100 µm in the marginal region. When the gingival displacement cord was used, the trueness of both IOSs did not exceed 100 µm regardless of the subgingival finish line depth. When gingival cord was used, it showed significantly higher trueness than when not used (P < 0.001). When the gingival displacement cord was not used, the trueness of IOSs decreased as the subgingival finish line depth increased. But the use of the gingival displacement cord improved the scanning trueness by 90%. Thus, it is necessary to use the gingival displacement cord according to the clinical situation to improve scan trueness at the subgingival finish line.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.